[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [四分律行事鈔資持記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805) › 1.260 # 四分律行事鈔資持記 1.260 四分律行事鈔資持記 1.260 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.260](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.260) 正解中，引文有三，初引《五分》證不局方。但云身面，可決《十誦》。次引《善見》，證必須圓。言方圓者，方指四向，圓即界體。乃下，引《了論》證取四維。然彼是作法，今明自然；但量法不殊，故得引證。合猶和也。角即四隅，論中正遮取方餘角故。 > In the correct explanation: there are three citations of text. First, citing the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya to prove it is not restricted to cardinal directions: merely saying "body and face" can resolve the Daśādhyāya-vinaya. Next, citing the Samantapāsādikā to prove it must be circular: speaking of square and round, square refers to the four directions, and round is the boundary essence itself. From "then" onwards, citing the Vinayadvāviṃśatividyā-śāstra to prove taking the four intermediate directions: however, that refers to enacted boundaries, while here natural ones are clarified; but because the measuring method is not different, it may be cited as evidence. He is like harmonizing. Corners are the four corners; the treatise precisely excludes taking a square with remaining corners. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.259](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.259) - [Next: 1.261](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.261) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805~en-mt.1.260) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.260](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1805.1.260) · Pramāṇa